1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140 
Change of garage satisfies LA
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• On examining the fleet of seven vehicles operated by Mr A. B. Windle, a Sheffield wholesale and retail coal merchant, two of the vehicles were issued with prohibitions and it was discovered that the keeping of records relating to the maintenance of the fleet had only recently been introduced.
This was the evidence given by Mr John Gordon, a DoE vehicle examiner, when in Sheffield on Tuesday, Mr Windle was called before the deputy Yorkshire LA, Mr M. Gosnay, under Section 69 of the Transport Act 1968. Mr Windle had also lodged an application to add to his fleet five vehicles and five trailers.
Representing Mr Windle, Mr J. Neilson
told the deputy LA tliat up to the time of the inspection the fleet had been maintained by a local garage which had proved to be unsuitable. Subsequently, Mr Windle had made arrangements with Philips Motor Services, Sheffield, to carry out maintenance and repairs to his fleet.
Asked if he felt the arrangement would be adequate. Mr Gordon replied that he did.
Giving evidence, Mr Anthony Windle said that he felt the GV9s would never have been issued if the garage had carried out its work properly. He went on to say that records of maintenance and repairs to the vehicles would be kept and drivers had been issued with daily defects sheets. In addition to the inspections by Philips Motor Services, Mr Windle himself intended to examine the vehicles at weekends.
After hearing the evidence Mr Gosnay said he had no reason to suppose that the GV9s, one immediate and one delayed, were not the result of another party and that he saw no reason why he should not grant the application as required and take no action against Mr Windle under Section 69.